MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142353558 · doi:10.1101/gad.1352905

Evolutionary conservation of the <i>clk-1</i>-dependent mechanism of longevity: loss of <i>mclk1</i> increases cellular fitness and lifespan in mice

2005· article· en· W2142353558 on OpenAlexafffund
Xingxing Liu, Ning Jiang, Bryan Hughes, Eve Bigras, Eric A. Shoubridge, Siegfried Hekimi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyCaenorhabditis elegansLongevityMechanism (biology)GeneticsGeneLoss of heterozygosityCell biologyAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inactivation of the Caenorhabditis elegans gene clk-1, which is required for ubiquinone biosynthesis, increases lifespan by an insulin signaling-independent mechanism. We find that homozygous inactivation of mclk1, the mouse ortholog of clk-1, yields ES cells that are protected from oxidative stress and damage to DNA. Moreover, in the livers of old mclk1(+/-) mice, hepatocytes that have lost mclk1 expression by loss of heterozygosity undergo clonal expansion, suggesting that their resistance to stress allows them to outcompete cells that still express the gene. mclk1(+/-) mice, whose growth and fertility are normal, also display a substantial increase in lifespan in each of three different genetic backgrounds. These observations indicate that the distinct mechanism by which clk-1/mclk1 affects lifespan is evolutionarily conserved from nematodes to mammals and is not tied to a particular anatomy or physiology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations347
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207